What Gains And Losses Have Occurred And Have We Taught Animals To Communicate And To What Extent?

Abstruse

The extent to which nonhuman animals can larn actual homo language is a controversial question, but many nonhuman species have acquired elements of a ii-way communication system that is, and was, sophisticated plenty to enable its utilize in evaluating cognitive capacities. This article is a personal view of the history of these animate being linguistic communication studies.

What follows is an opinion piece, from someone who was present and function of the field almost from its inception, who attended the relevant conferences, who experienced first-manus the interactions betwixt the major players and the interactions amid these players, the press, and the scientific community at big. As such, it is a personal view of what happened; it is not meant to be a thorough scientific review of all the experiments, criticisms, and rebuttals, or fifty-fifty a thorough review of where we are today. I take and admit that others will have their own memories, their own interpretations, and their own views.

The 1960s through the mid 1970s was an incredibly exciting time to exist involved in studies on beast abilities. For the first time, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1973) had been won by iii ethologists—von Frisch, Lorenz, and Tinbergen. The field of psychology had been shaken up by the aptly named "cognitive revolution"—the radical notion that levels and types of intelligence in nonhumans formed a continuum with those of humans (e.g., Hulse, Fowler, & Honig, 1968). These events inspired researchers to study a wide range of behavior—including advice—in various species. Griffin (1976) encouraged his colleagues by arguing that interspecies advice would be a possible window on the minds of animals. Moreover, what came to be known as "animal linguistic communication studies" were also in progress. Previous attempts to teach language to apes (e.g., Hayes & Nissen, 1956/1971; Kellogg, 1968) and dolphins (Lilly, 1967), using man speech, had failed. Nevertheless, researchers had hypothesized that alternative modes of communication might evidence fruitful, and were achieving some success. Different labs were using different techniques to institute two-fashion communication with our nearest relatives—chimpanzees (R. A. Gardner & Gardner, 1969; Premack, 1971; Rumbaugh et al., 1973), an orangutan (Miles, 1978), and a gorilla (Patterson, 1978). Other labs were investigating similar abilities in nonhuman species not at all closely related to humans (e.g., Herman'southward (1980) piece of work on dolphins). And the astonishing studies on vocal learning in songbirds, showing the striking comparisons between the process of song acquisition and man linguistic communication learning (e.g., Marler, 1973), inspired me to begin piece of work on training a Grey parrot to use referential speech (Pepperberg, 1981).

Results from the different laboratories were divergent, but complementary. Use of American Sign Language and Signed English (Gardners, Miles, Patterson) allowed for flexibility, innovation, and direct comparisons of communicative acquisition betwixt child and ape. Use of plastic fries to correspond labels, taught via a no-mistake choice process (Premack), provided less data about advice skills but began to elucidate how conquering of symbolic representation could bear on cerebral processing. Use of a glorified Skinner box, initially with an ape named Lana (Rumbaugh), removed nearly of the effects of social interaction to get at which basic concepts could be acquired via associative learning and how such learning could yet allow for innovation. Herman's early on work ran afoul of animal rights activists, merely with new subjects he had begun to bear witness that dolphins could respond to specific cues with specific deportment that demonstrated referential comprehension. My parrot started to employ the sounds of English speech to place objects, colors, and shapes. A media storm ensued (e.k., NOVA and BBC Horizon did documentaries; numerous manufactures were published in places like The New York Times). Not only had nosotros achieved a kind of "Dr. Doolittle" moment, just nosotros felt we could be gaining insights into how language and circuitous cognition might have evolved in our ancestors. If creatures separated by 300 million years of development and with remarkably different-looking brains could all acquire some level of symbolic representation and regular ordering of those symbols, wouldn't that imply something bones in evolution? How might our ancestors have built upon such abilities?

These studies were fifty-fifty more exciting considering they began merely a decade or so after major competing theories had been proposed for how children acquired language—Chomsky's (1959) innate Language Conquering Device (LAD) and Skinner'due south (1957) tabula rasa in which conditioning played a major part. Child developmental laboratories sprung upward, gathering information to effort to support 1 side or the other (amazingly, little enquiry had actually previously been done), simply the implications of the studies on nonhumans were clear: To country the instance in the simplest terms possible, if Chomsky was correct, no nonhuman could perchance larn anything like language; if Skinner was correct, it was only a matter of time, energy, effort, and the right procedure that would ensure success.

The stakes were high, and many researchers wrote scholarly manufactures questioning what exactly nonhumans had learned, disputing the extent of the claims being made (eastward.one thousand., Bronowski & Bellugi, 1970; Lachman & Mister-Lachman, 1974; Lenneberg, cited in Nottebohm, 1973). These articles, and their rebuttals, started serious discussions of truly important questions: for example, what were the actual hallmarks of linguistic communication; what might the apes', dolphins', and parrot'due south abilities tell us nearly linguistic communication evolution and cognitive processing; what stages did children go through en route to total linguistic communication; how did codes such as ASL differ from spoken language, and were these differences important? (Note that at one point some scientists questioned if ASL was fifty-fifty a real human language; a full analysis hadn't been published until Stokoe, 1978.) If cypher else, data from these studies spurred research on kid linguistic communication acquisition and cerebral evolution. Every bit more was learned, the bar kept being raised for the nonhumans: In one case nonhumans could utilize symbols to refer to objects, they needed to use symbols for verbs, then needed to construct phrases, and likewise needed to employ this acquired code to demonstrate circuitous cerebral processes (categorization, relational concepts, aforementioned-dissimilar, etc.). In frustration, Fouts (1974) basically argued that language seemed to be divers as whatever information technology was that apes didn't have. Notwithstanding, what our animals did acquire provided important insights. Whether or non Premack's plastic flake system could be chosen "language," only apes who had undergone such training seemingly could learn concepts such as formal analogies (Premack, 1976). Did such training really alter the apes' brains? Could these information provide information on how symbolic representation, cognitive processing, and brain development might accept interacted to make changes in our ancestors en route to mod humans?

At this point, nevertheless, no i had argued that issues existed with the data being collected. At least not until Terrace (Terrace, 1979a; Terrace et al., 1979). Terrace reported that his ape, Nim (named Nim Chimpsky, in a stab at Chomsky), learned very footling after being trained in sign language merely via the techniques of operant conditioning (Fouts, 1983). Other signing apes had been taught in ways based on those used with immature children: rich in social interaction, modeling, and referential rewards (if an ape signed something about X, it usually received 10 or got to do 10; e.g., R. A. Gardner & Gardner, 1969). Terrace and colleagues (1979) argued that because his ape could not create a sentence comparable to i used by adult, oral humans, no ape could acquire anything vaguely resembling human linguistic communication. Although Terrace (1979a) did enhance points well-nigh methodology and data interpretation that needed addressing (due east.g., the sometimes small numbers of options from which subjects could choose the correct reply and oft the modest numbers of trials involved, both lowering the statistical power), he did non limit his criticisms to those points. Specifically, he compared ASL-learning chimps not with ASL-learning human infants, but (improperly) with infants acquiring spoken English language. Thus, he correctly noted that ASL strings such every bit You ME EAT? lacked the complexity of English syntax, just failed to admit that such strings were one way in which human oral sentences such as "Wanna catch lunch?" might be expressed in sign, particularly by children, and thus were, at many levels, equivalent (note B. T. Gardner & Gardner, 1998; Van Cantfort & Rimpau, 1982). He didn't accept that in a organisation in which one can't increment volume, emphasis occurs by perseveration (Finton & Smith, 2003; B. T. Gardner & Gardner, 1998; Hoffmeister, Moores, & Ellenberger, 1975). He acknowledged that his ape never progressed beyond simple associations between objects, a few actions, and symbols, but not that such associations are ofttimes the very commencement stages in homo label acquisition (eastward.m., Bloom, 1973). (Numerous reasons likely existed for Nim'south failures, some of which might have been the huge number, ~40, of different trainers, few of whom were expert in sign; or the utilise of nonreferential food rewards for the conquering of nonfood signs, thus making the association between sign and object less relevant; encounter Terrace, 1979b). He did not take evidence presented by other laboratories for spontaneous generation of signs ("cry hurt food" for radishes; Fouts, 1974), or concatenation of computer lexigrams ("coke that is orange" for Fanta; Rumbaugh, 1977). Terrace went even farther in his 1979 manufactures, yet, arguing that the other signing studies were no ameliorate than his, that their data were not being analyzed appropriately, and that such studies were essentially worthless.

What could have been a serial of academic arguments (see, e.g., the exchanges between Schusterman and Herman in the belatedly 1980s, cited below), even resulting in collaborative efforts (e.g., combining the strengths and eliminating the weaknesses of the varying training and testing techniques to make up one's mind something about linguistic communication primitives and nonhuman cerebral processing), instead devolved into total chaos when the New York Academy of Sciences, in 1980, hosted a conference put together by Thomas Sebeok, a noted researcher in zoosemotics, and Robert Rosenthal, who studied nonverbal communication and how expectancies influenced conclusions (Sebeok & Rosenthal, 1981). The briefing non only had scientists equally speakers simply as well nonscientists like the "Astonishing Randi," a professional person magician, who demonstrated how easily people could exist fooled into seeing what they wanted or expected to meet. Sign linguistic communication researchers were accused of cuing their apes past ostensive signals (even though apes, as it turns out, may have some difficulty interpreting such forms of human activity; see Bräuer, Kaminski, Riedel, Phone call, & Tomasello, 2006), and of consistently overinterpreting the animals' signs (a possibility in some instances, but not in others; see R. A. Gardner & Gardner, 1984, for controlled vocabulary tests). Scientists such as the Rumbaughs vehemently objected to the assault, but at the time argued that simply their own computer-based system prevented the bug the conference was addressing, thus showing little affiliation with, or giving any back up to, researchers using other techniques (Marx, 1980; Wade, 1980). They thus added to the furor sparked by Sebeok and Rosenthal, who all but chosen researchers in the field liars, cheats, and frauds (and really did so in a postconference press gathering; Wade, 1980). The briefing was covered by the media (run across review for Science; Wade, 1980), and the public brouhaha meant that authorities agencies—responsive to the blow-back—fairly rapidly cut off the funding for all of the studies.

Almost all of the laboratories abandoned their studies of linguistic communication per se, but the silvery lining was that most shifted to using what we chosen "two-way advice systems" to examine various forms of cognitive processing that relied on symbolic representation—for case, studies on numerical concepts (eastward.thousand., Boysen, 1993; Boysen et al., 1993; Matsuzawa, 2009; Pepperberg, 2006; Pepperberg & Carey, 2012); rule-governed behavior, perception, and cognition (east.g., Herman, 1987, 1988, 2010; Herman et al., 1993; Schusterman & Gisiner, 1988, 1989; Schusterman & Krieger, 1984); relational concepts (Pepperberg & Brezinsky, 1991; Schusterman & Krieger, 1986); and symbolic equivalence (e.1000., Kastak & Schusterman, 2002; Pepperberg & Gordon, 2005; Reiss & McCowan, 1993). Other researchers examined unlike forms of rule-governed behavior (and frequently social learning) that were the basis for syntax, such equally the ordered sets of actions needed to solve puzzle boxes and how those ordered sets may exist acquired (keas: Miyata, Gajdon, Huber, & Fujita, 2011; apes: Whiten, 1998; note Terrace, Son, & Brannon, 2003, on other forms of serial learning in monkeys).

The Rumbaughs, at to the lowest degree for awhile, continued to examine aspects of symbolic advice, although primarily in terms of comparative noesis, studying similarities and differences between bonobos and common chimpanzees with respect to aspects of symbolic labeling and comprehension of sentence frames (reviewed in Savage-Rumbaugh, Brakke, & Hutchins, 1992). Interestingly, this subsequently work ofttimes specifically tested furnishings of social interaction, acknowledging a significant change in methodology and interpretation. Other researchers examined receptive capacities of dogs, possibly to see if the process of domestication had an consequence on referential learning (e.g., Kaminski, Telephone call, & Fischer, 2004; annotation Griebel & Oller, 2012) and still others worked to "fissure the lawmaking" of communication in nature (e.chiliad., monkeys: Schlenker, Chemla, Arnold, & Zuberbühler, 2016; song sparrows: Beecher & Akçay, 2014; toothed whales: Janik, Sayigh, & Wells, 2006; McCowan & Reiss, 2001). Some researchers have looked for rule-governed behavior with respect to communication systems by studying nonhumans' (peculiarly songbirds') agreement of artificial grammars (Beckers, Bolhuis, Okanoya, & Bewick, 2012; Gentner, Fenn, Margoliash, & Nussbaum, 2006; Fitch & Friederici 2012; ten Cate & Okanoya, 2012).

Thus, although interspecies communication studies may not have taught nonhumans to utilise "language," nonhumans (and those who studied them) had learned quite a bit. Clearly, some common neural architecture enabled disparate nonhuman species to achieve a level of symbolic representation and rule-governed behavior, suggesting that some such abilities were probable in their natural communication systems and had evolved for that purpose—it was unlikely that researchers instilled such behavior entirely de novo. Nevertheless, grants for such studies became more than and more than difficult to obtain, subjects began to dice off, and the next generation of students seemed more intrigued by human neurobiology and fMRIs. And, in a somewhat unnerving turn of events, animate being rights leaders began using the data obtained by researchers in the animal linguistic communication/animal cognition field to push button for rules and regulations prohibiting apes and marine mammals from being available for such studies in the futurity.

Equally a issue, we are missing many opportunities. The possibilities of studying nonhumans as models for our bequeathed abilities or for how convergent evolution might have led to similar language-like abilities in birds, humans, and marine mammals has significantly decreased—as is the possibility of beginning studies with other vocal learners such every bit elephants (note Stoeger et al., 2012). Fortunately, the field of brute cognition still has pockets of strength, and questions grow: What are the differences in imitative power (in all its complexity—eastward.g., mimicry vs. emulation vs. imitation) that might be important for human–nonhuman communication systems and acquisition of cerebral concepts (e.yard., Nielsen, Subiaul, Galef, Zentall, & Whiten, 2012)? Given that we know more now about signed languages, their parallels to spoken languages, and how they can evolve over time (e.1000., Goldin-Meadow et al., 2015), and more about language pedagogy (due east.g., Golinkoff, Can, Soderstrom, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2015), how much might apes learn if trained accordingly? Given the enquiry on using computer-based communication grooming and portable systems for children on the autistic spectrum (Ramdoss et al., 2011), where might such grooming accept led with apes and marine mammals? Given that we know more nearly human languages and are continuing to learn more (e.k., Levinson & Gray, 2012), are the criteria nosotros one time used for nonhuman acquisition fair? With data on those fronts, not to mention knowledge of brain structures and connectivity, and the striking parallels between primate and nonprimate and even nonmammalian advice systems, what might we be able to deduce about the precursors to mod human languages? Might studies of avian vocal learning—with respect to possible avian "missing links," such as bellbirds (flycatchers technically classified as suboscines—nonvocal learners—that nevertheless do learn elementary songs; Kroodsma et al., 2013)—tell us, through investigations of convergent development, something about what types of brains our ancestors might accept been developing? The listing tin get on, and the implications are articulate.

References

• Beckers, M. J. Fifty., Bolhuis, J. J., Okanoya, K., & Berwick, R. C. (2012). Birdsong neurolinguistics: Songbird context-free grammer merits is premature. Neuroreport, 3, 139–145.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Beecher, M. D., & Akçay, Ç. (2014). Friends and enemies: How social dynamics shape communication and song learning in song sparrows. In K. Yasukawa (Ed.), Fauna beliefs (Vol. iii, pp. 33–61). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

  Google Scholar

• Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of unmarried give-and-take utterances before syntax. Holland: Mouton: The Hague.

  Google Scholar

• Boysen, S. T. (1993). Counting in chimpanzees: Nonhuman principles and emergent properties of number. In S. T. Boysen & Eastward. J. Capaldi (Eds.), The evolution of numerical competence: Fauna and human models (pp. 39–59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar

• Boysen, Southward. T., Berntson, G. Grand., Shreyer, T. A., & Quigley, K. S. (1993). Processing of ordinality and transitivity past chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Periodical of Comparative Psychology, 107, 208–215.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Phone call, J., & Tomasello, Yard. (2006). Making inferences about the location of subconscious food: Social dog, causal ape. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 38–47.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Bronowski, J., & Bellugi, U. (1970). Language, name and concept. Science, 168, 669–673.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Chomsky, Due north. (1959). Review of Verbal Behaviour, past B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Finton, Fifty., & Smith, R. (2003). Interpreter soapbox: English to ASL expansion /ASL to English compression. Rochester, NY: National Technical Institute for the Deaf.

  Google Scholar

• Fitch, W. T., & Friederici, A. D. (2012). Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: An overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Social club B, 367, 1933–1955.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Fouts, R. S. (1974). Linguistic communication: Origins, definition, and chimpanzees. Periodical of Homo Development, 3, 475–482.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Fouts, R. S. (1983). Chimpanzee linguistic communication and elephant tails: A theoretical synthesis. In Language in primates (pp. 63–75). New York, NY: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar

• Gardner, B. T., & Gardner, R. A. (1998). Development of phrases in the utterances of children and cross-fostered chimpanzees. Human being Development, xiii, 161–188.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gardner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science, 187, 644–672.

  Google Scholar

• Gardner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T. (1984). A vocabulary test for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Periodical of Comparative Psychology, 1984, 381–404.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, One thousand. Chiliad., Margoliash, D., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006). Recursive syntactic design learning by songbirds. Nature, 440, 1204–1207.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

• Goldin-Meadow, Due south., Brentari, D., Coppola, Yard., Horton, 50., & Senghas, A. (2015). Watching language grow in the manual modality: Nominals, predicates, and handshapes. Cognition, 135, 381–395.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Golinkoff, R. One thousand., Can, D. D., Soderstrom, M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). (Baby)Talk to me: The social context of infant-directed spoken communication and its effects on early linguistic communication acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Scientific discipline, 24, 339–344.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Griebel, U., & Oller, D. 1000. (2012). Vocabulary learning in a Yorkshire terrier: Slow mapping of spoken words. PLOS ONE, seven(2), e30182. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0030182

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

• Griffin, D. R. (1976). The question of animal awareness: Evolutionary continuity of mental experience. New York, NY: Rockefeller University Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Hayes, K. J., & Nissen, C. H. (1971). College mental functions of a dwelling-raised chimpanzee. In A. Thou. Schrier & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of non-human primates (Vol. 4, pp. 57–115). New York, NY: Academic Press (Original piece of work published 1956).

  Google Scholar

• Herman, Fifty. Yard. (1980). Cognitive characteristics of dolphins. In L. Grand. Herman (Ed.), Cetacean behavior (pp. 408–409). New York, NY: Wiley.

  Google Scholar

• Herman, L. Yard. (1987). Receptive competencies of language-trained animals. In J. Due south. Rosenblatt, C. Beer, Chiliad.-C. Busnel, & P. J. B. Slater (Eds.), Advances in the report of behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 1–lx). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  Google Scholar

• Herman, 50. M. (1988). The language of animate being language research: A reply to Schusterman and Gisiner. The Psychological Record, 38, 349–362.

  Google Scholar

• Herman, Fifty. M. (2010). What laboratory inquiry has told usa about dolphin cognition. International Periodical of Comparative Psychology, 23, 310–330.

  Google Scholar

• Herman, Fifty. M., Kuczaj, S. A., & Holder, Yard. D. (1993). Response to anomalous gestural sequences past a language-trained dolphin: Evidence for processing of semantic relations and syntactic information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 184–194.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Hoffmeister, R. J., Moores, D. F., & Ellenberger, R. L. (1975). Some procedural guidelines for the study of the acquisition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 7, 121–137.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hulse, S. H., Fowler, H., & Honig, W. K. (Eds.). (1968). Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar

• Janik, V. Chiliad., Sayigh, L. S., & Wells, R. S. (2006). Signature whistle shape conveys identity information to bottlenose dolphins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a. of America, 103, 8293–8297.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

• Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: Bear witness for 'fast mapping'. Science, 304, 1682–1683.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Kastak, C. R., & Scuhsterman, R. J. (2002). Bounding main lions and equivalence: Expanding classes by exclusion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 449–465.

  Commodity  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

• Kellogg, W. N. (1968). Communication and language in the domicile-raised chimpanzee. Science, 162, 423–438.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Kroodsma, D. East., Hamilton, D., Sánchez, J. E., Byers, B. Due east., Fandiño-Mariño, H., Stemple, D. K., . . . Powell, G. V. N. (2013). Behavioral evidence for song learning in the suboscine bellbirds (Procnias spp.; Cotingidae). Wilson Periodical of Ornithology, 125, 1–14.

• Lachman, R., & Mister-Lachman, J. (1974). Linguistic communication in man, monkeys, and machines. Science, 185, 871–873.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Levinson, Southward., & Gray, R. (2012). Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, xvi, 167–173.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Lilly, J. C. (1967). Dolphin's vocal mimicry as a unique ability and a step toward agreement. In K. Salzinger & S. Salzinger (Eds.), Inquiry in exact behavior and some neurophysiological implications (pp. 21–27). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  Chapter  Google Scholar

• Marler, P. (1973). Spoken language evolution and bird vocal: Are there any parallels? In G. A. Miller (Ed.), Advice, language, and meaning (pp. 73–83). New York, NY: Basic Books.

  Google Scholar

• Marx, J. (1980). Ape-language controversy flares up. Science, 207, 1330–1333.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Matsuzawa, T. (2009). Symbolic representation of number in chimpanzees. Electric current Opinions in Neurobiology, 19, 92–98.

  Article  Google Scholar

• McCowan, B., & Reiss, D. 50. (2001). The fallacy of 'signature whistles' in bottlenose dolphins: A comparative perspective of 'signature data' in creature vocalizations. Animal Behaviour, 62, 1151–1162.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Miles, H. L. (1978). Language conquering in apes and children. In F. C. C. Peng (Ed.), Sign linguistic communication and language acquisition in human being and ape (pp. 108–120). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  Google Scholar

• Miyata, H., Gajdon, G. G., Huber, L., & Fujita, K. (2011). How exercise keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit bug with multiple locks? Animal Cognition, 14(1), 45–58.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Nielsen, Thousand., Subiaul, F., Galef, B., Zentall, T. R., & Whiten, A. (2012). Social learning in humans and nonhuman animals: Theoretical and empirical discussions. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126, 100–113.

  Google Scholar

• Nottebohm, F. (1973). A zoologist's view of language phenomena. In E. H. Lenneberg & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Foundations of linguistic communication development: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 61–121). New York, NY: Bookish Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Patterson, F. G. (1978). Linguistic capabilities of a lowland gorilla. In F. C. C. Peng (Ed.), Sign linguistic communication and linguistic communication acquisition in human being and ape (pp. 161–201). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  Google Scholar

• Pepperberg, I. One thousand. (1981). Functional vocalizations past an African Greyness parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 55, 139–160.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Pepperberg, I. Grand. (2006). Ordinality and inferential abilities of a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Periodical of Comparative Psychology, 120, 205–216.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Pepperberg, I. One thousand., & Brezinsky, M. 5. (1991). Acquisition of a relative course concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Discriminations based on relative size. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 105, 286–294.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Pepperberg, I. M., & Carey, S. (2012). Grey parrot number acquisition: The inference of cardinal value from ordinal position on the numeral list. Cognition, 125, 219–232.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

• Pepperberg, I. Grand., & Gordon, J. D. (2005). Number comprehension by a Gray parrot (Psittacus erithacus), including a zero-like concept. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 197–209.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Premack, D. (1971). On the cess of language-competence in the chimpanzee. In A. M. Schrier & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates (Vol. four, pp. 186–228). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  Google Scholar

• Premack, D. (1976). Intelligence in ape and human being. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar

• Ramdoss, Due south., Lang, R., Mulloy, A., Franco, J., O'Reilly, Chiliad., Didden, R., & Lancioni, G. (2011). Use of computer-based interventions to teach communication skills to children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 55–76.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Reiss, D. 50., & McCowan, B. (1993). Spontaneous vocal mimicry and product past bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): Show for vocal learning. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 301–312.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Rumbaugh, D. M. (1977). Language learning past a chimpanzee. New York, NY: Academic Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Rumbaugh, D. G., von Glasersfeld, Due east. C., Warner, H., Pisani, P., Gill, T. V., Chocolate-brown, J. 5., & Bell, C. L. (1973). A computer-controlled language training system for investigating the language skills of young apes. Behavior Research Methodology and Instrumentation, 5, 385–392.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Southward., Brakke, K., & Hutchins, S. (1992). Linguistic development: Contrasts between co-reared Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus. In T. Nishida, West. C. McGrew, P. Marler, Thousand. Pickford, & F. B. Grand. de Waal (Eds.), Topics in primatology: Human origins (pp. 51–66). Tokyo, Nippon: University of Tokyo Press.

  Google Scholar

• Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Arnold, Thousand., & Zuberbühler, M. (2016). Pyow-hack revisited: Two analyses of putty-nosed monkey alert calls. Lingua, 171, 1–23.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Schusterman, R. J., & Gisiner, R. C. (1988). Artificial language comprehension in dolphins and sea lions: The essential cognitive skills. The Psychological Tape, 38, 311–348.

  Google Scholar

• Schusterman, R. J., & Gisiner, R. C. (1989). Delight parse the sentence: Creature noesis in the Procrustean bed of linguistics. Psychological Record, 39, 1–18.

  Google Scholar

• Schusterman, R. J., & Krieger, K. (1984). California sea lions are capable of semantic comprehension. The Psychological Record, 34, 3–24.

  Google Scholar

• Schusterman, R. J., & Krieger, K. (1986). Bogus language comprehension and size transposition past a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 348–355.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Sebeok, T. A., & Rosenthal, R. (Eds.). (1981). The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences (Annals).

• Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

  Book  Google Scholar

• Stoeger, A. South., Mietchen, D., Oh, S., de Silva, S., Herbst, C. T., Kwon, South., & Fitch, West. T. (2012). An Asian elephant imitates human speech. Current Biology, 22, 2144–2148.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

• Stokoe, W. C. (1978). Sign linguistic communication structure. Silver Spring, Medico: Linstock Press.

  Google Scholar

• ten Cate, C., & Okanoya, Chiliad. (2012). Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-man animals: Natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Lodge B, 367(1598), 1984–1994.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Terrace, H. S. (1979a). Is problem-solving language? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 151–170.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Terrace, H. S. (1979b) Nim. New York, NY: Knopf.

• Terrace, H. S., Petitto, L. A., Sanders, R. J., & Bever, T. G. (1979). Tin can an ape create a judgement? Science, 206, 891–902.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Terrace, H. S., Son, L. Chiliad., & Brannon, Eastward. M. (2003). Serial expertise of rhesus macaques. Psychological Science, 14, 66–73.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Van Cantfort, T. E., & Rimpau, J. B. (1982). Sign languge studies with children and chimpanzees. Sign Language Studies, 34, xv–72.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Wade, N. (1980). Does man solitary take linguistic communication? Apes answer in riddles and a equus caballus says neigh. Science, 208, 1349–1351.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

• Whiten, A. (1998). Imitation of the sequential structure of actions by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 270–281.

  Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

Download references

Author data

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Psychology, William James Hall, Harvard Academy, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, U.s.a.

   Irene K. Pepperberg

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene M. Pepperberg.

Additional information

Preparation of this article was supported by donors to The Alex Foundation.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pepperberg, I.One thousand. Animal language studies: What happened?. Psychon Bull Rev 24, 181–185 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1101-y

Download commendation

• Published: 01 July 2016

• Issue Engagement: February 2017

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.3758/s13423-016-1101-y

Keywords

• Animal cognition
• Interspecies communication
• Animal language studies
• Language development

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1101-y

Posted by: sotogreped.blogspot.com

Share this post